Tor

Tor is an encrypted anonymising network that makes it harder to intercept internet communications, or see where communications are coming from or going to.

In order to use the WikiLeaks public submission system as detailed above you can download the Tor Browser Bundle, which is a Firefox-like browser available for Windows, Mac OS X and GNU/Linux and pre-configured to connect using the anonymising system Tor.

Tails

If you are at high risk and you have the capacity to do so, you can also access the submission system through a secure operating system called Tails. Tails is an operating system launched from a USB stick or a DVD that aim to leaves no traces when the computer is shut down after use and automatically routes your internet traffic through Tor. Tails will require you to have either a USB stick or a DVD at least 4GB big and a laptop or desktop computer.

Tips

Our submission system works hard to preserve your anonymity, but we recommend you also take some of your own precautions. Please review these basic guidelines.

1. Contact us if you have specific problems

If you have a very large submission, or a submission with a complex format, or are a high-risk source, please contact us. In our experience it is always possible to find a custom solution for even the most seemingly difficult situations.

2. What computer to use

If the computer you are uploading from could subsequently be audited in an investigation, consider using a computer that is not easily tied to you. Technical users can also use Tails to help ensure you do not leave any records of your submission on the computer.

3. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

After

1. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

2. Act normal

If you are a high-risk source, avoid saying anything or doing anything after submitting which might promote suspicion. In particular, you should try to stick to your normal routine and behaviour.

3. Remove traces of your submission

If you are a high-risk source and the computer you prepared your submission on, or uploaded it from, could subsequently be audited in an investigation, we recommend that you format and dispose of the computer hard drive and any other storage media you used.

In particular, hard drives retain data after formatting which may be visible to a digital forensics team and flash media (USB sticks, memory cards and SSD drives) retain data even after a secure erasure. If you used flash media to store sensitive data, it is important to destroy the media.

If you do this and are a high-risk source you should make sure there are no traces of the clean-up, since such traces themselves may draw suspicion.

4. If you face legal action

If a legal action is brought against you as a result of your submission, there are organisations that may help you. The Courage Foundation is an international organisation dedicated to the protection of journalistic sources. You can find more details at https://www.couragefound.org.

Submit documents to WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks publishes documents of political or historical importance that are censored or otherwise suppressed. We specialise in strategic global publishing and large archives.

The following is the address of our secure site where you can anonymously upload your documents to WikiLeaks editors. You can only access this submissions system through Tor. (See our Tor tab for more information.) We also advise you to read our tips for sources before submitting.

User talk:Kip

From WikiLeaks

Confusion of Posting and Discussion Pages

This post is a response to the following, and discusses a larger issue:

You misunderstand the article. The "Description (original submitter)" field is never changed, by WL editors or anyone else, since it is the direct statement of the source (to WL) and as such is an historical document. It does not imply that WL agrees with the statement. The "concensus" position is the "Summary". Jay 1.0.22.53 10:56, 22 May 2008 (GMT)

(and a special thank you to Jay for signing his inserted post for clarity)

and then commences a "news" article about an ongoing copyright controversy between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Wikimedia Foundation.

The original submitter's "description" does not appear on the page I am discussing. Really, try it (if you don't see what I describe above, try using Shift-Reload -- there may be some site-wide or local caching issues - I often have to Shift-Reload after submitting a post or I see the discussion page without the latest post).

Now you should see what I mean....I make a post about a news article and other posters apparently do not know what I am posting in response to -- because they see something different at the same link?

Jay, if you do stop by here, I would be curious to know what you thought my post was in response to.

The more general question, which may be a technical point btw, is 'what do people see when they go to a link?' -- is there a technical caching issue?

That is an article by Wikinews. As such it would be improper for it to be edited. Wikileaks 17:34, 22 May 2008 (GMT)

THIS POST is about whether or not there is a caching issue, built into WikiLeaks pages, that leads to confusion about what page or materials is being addressed by the users comment. Thanks for reading, Kip 10:23, 23 May 2008 (GMT)

This phenomena is caused by re-directing the Discuss tab on the several pages to a single Talk Page for all the related LDS Church Handbook pages. I have posted a alert at the top of the Talk page to advise users of this point.

I publicly call...

And, of course, I wouldn't want to alter the "original submitter's description" -- it is important be to able to see exactly what the submitter had to say.

Note: I do take serious issue with the "consensus" summary -- for instance - exactly what group is this the consensus of? Usually in a Wiki, this would end up being the "forged-in-the-fire-of-lively-but-civil-discussion consensus" of all the Wiki "editors" (using the WikiPedia definition) that cared to participate.

What I would want to do, and what I am insisting that WikiLeaks MUST allow if it is to be of any value, is to allow others to publish, ON THE SAME PAGE and WITH THE SAME RELATIVE VALUE differing interpretations, differing viewpoints, opposing viewpoints, and to suggest and make factual corrections -- even if these subsequent posts run contrary to the views, opinions, and assertions of the original submitter...and the views and opinions of "whomever must accept submissions".

If WikiLeaks is not obsessively dedicated to Good Journalism and Truth and Accuracy, it will become just another radical rant blog -- worthless as a source of information and ineffective in its stated journalistic role.

I repeat here, unashamedly:

I publicly call on the principal founders of this website, and the members of their Board of Advisors, to establish and enforce policies that will instill here Basic Principals of Good Journalism, to really make WikiLeaks stand for Truth, Accuracy in Reporting, Fairness, and Revealing Unethical Behavior in Governments and Corporations and to Revise the Operations of WikiLeaks so that it is is accordance with the accepted spirit of Wiki - anyone can edit!

Thanks for reading,

We have tried this several times in the past and the result has always been a disaster. We're considering what to do about it. Wikileaks 17:34, 22 May 2008 (GMT)